Melancholia (Lars von Trier, 2011)

[Reliakor]

Where do you draw the line? What condition or circumstance may not have its etiology so schematized as to render the existence of free will absolutely dubious? Is depression a special condition for which no shades of grey exist? Do all severe depressives require their sister to bathe them (in the midst of a hysterically weepy fit)?

Your confusion is so fundamental that it's difficult to know where to start. Free will is not a relevant issue here. Clinical depression is a disruption of proper brain chemistry. Your post makes as much sense as demanding a severely drunk person use their free will to stop slurring their speech. If your brain chemistry won't allow certain responses, then it won't, free will is irrelevant. You can only act as your brain allows you. And if your brain exhausts you, makes you anhedonic, overwhelmed with feelings that have no location outside of you on top of external stressers doing your condition no good, then your range of reaction is going to be limited.

If you think acting erratically under a mental affliction makes someone an asshole, so be it. Note that Justine manages a gigantic expression of human sympathy while you cannot even manage a relatively minor one being handed to you like a gift.

No, this is a bit too simplistic. Take the bolded analogy. I'd contend that my point is more akin to asserting that not all drunk people become loud, belligerent and violent. That certain people do is of course true. That others may turn taciturn, withdrawn, and pensive is also true. Others yet may become warmly sociable. Similarly, claiming that all severely depressed people behave like Justine is erroneous, so then why pretend that her disease informs every aspect of her behavior?

[Reliakor]

As for projecting a dislike of a character onto a reading of the film for no other reason than that perception of the character, he relinquishes any claim to an intelligent response to the film, one which is no more than "I don't like the film becase she's an asshole." Yet I could happily listen to negative criticism based on formal elements or genuine concerns for instance with whether an actor's performance and the director's guidance works, fits into the scheme of things or not.

You're overlooking the part where I said I found Justine's section the most watchable, Claire's being overwhelmed by narrative stasis. By no means is my attitude toward Justine (and by extension, Von Trier's) my sole problem with Melancholia.

Edit: Oh, and any distinction between form and content is an artificial one. Concepts, ideas, perspectives are as embedded in the meaning of a film as color is, or shooting technique, or editing, or whatever we commonly consider "formal" aspects. That you think problems (asserted on my end) with the main character of a film cannot mar its aesthetic value, given other relevant factors (like an implicit demand for sympathy for/identification with that character, etc.), is bizarre.

[Zot!]

why pretend that her disease informs every aspect of her behavior?

Because the title of the Movie is Melancholia, and a giant planet called Melancholia is going to crash into earth destroying everything. I somehow sensed there was some overt symbolism here, but you never know.

[Mr Sausage]

No, this is a bit too simplistic. Take the bolded analogy. I'd contend that my point is more akin to asserting that not all drunk people become loud, belligerent and violent. That certain people do is of course true. That others may turn taciturn, withdrawn, and pensive is also true. Others yet may become warmly sociable. Similarly, claiming that all severely depressed people behave like Justine is erroneous, so then why pretend that her disease informs every aspect of her behavior?

Oh for Christ's sake. Congratulations on missing the actual analogy, that a chemically altered brain cannot simply be willed out of its chemical alterations.

I'm not going to argue this with you anymore because I think what you're doing, using sophisms to attack people over medical conditions of which you remain almost totally ignorant, is appalling. I'll just leave you with some preliminary reading from UC Berkeley's Health Services:

When we refer to depression in the following pages, we are talking about "clinical depression." Clinical depression is a serious medical illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act. Individuals with clinical depression are unable to function as they used to. Often they have lost interest in activities that were once enjoyable to them, and feel sad and hopeless for extended periods of time. Clinical depression is not the same as feeling sad or depressed for a few days and then feeling better. It can affect your body, mood, thoughts, and behavior. It can change your eating habits, how you feel and think, your ability to work and study, and how you interact with people. People who suffer from clinical depression often report that they "don't feel like themselves anymore."

Clinical depression is not a sign of personal weakness, or a condition that can be willed away. Clinically depressed people cannot "pull themselves together" and get better. In fact, clinical depression often interferes with a person's ability or wish to get help. Clinical depression is a serious illness that lasts for weeks, months and sometimes years. It may even influence someone to contemplate or attempt suicide.

[Reliakor]

No, this is a bit too simplistic. Take the bolded analogy. I'd contend that my point is more akin to asserting that not all drunk people become loud, belligerent and violent. That certain people do is of course true. That others may turn taciturn, withdrawn, and pensive is also true. Others yet may become warmly sociable. Similarly, claiming that all severely depressed people behave like Justine is erroneous, so then why pretend that her disease informs every aspect of her behavior?

Oh for Christ's sake. Congratulations on missing the actual analogy, that a chemically altered brain cannot simply be willed out of its chemical alterations.

I'm not going to argue this with you anymore because I think using sophisms to attack people over medical conditions of which you remain almost totally ignorant is appalling. I'll just leave you with some preliminary reading from UC Berkey's Health Services:

When we refer to depression in the following pages, we are talking about "clinical depression." Clinical depression is a serious medical illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act. Individuals with clinical depression are unable to function as they used to. Often they have lost interest in activities that were once enjoyable to them, and feel sad and hopeless for extended periods of time. Clinical depression is not the same as feeling sad or depressed for a few days and then feeling better. It can affect your body, mood, thoughts, and behavior. It can change your eating habits, how you feel and think, your ability to work and study, and how you interact with people. People who suffer from clinical depression often report that they "don't feel like themselves anymore."

Clinical depression is not a sign of personal weakness, or a condition that can be willed away. Clinically depressed people cannot "pull themselves together" and get better. In fact, clinical depression often interferes with a person's ability or wish to get help. Clinical depression is a serious illness that lasts for weeks, months and sometimes years. It may even influence someone to contemplate or attempt suicide.

If you wish to continue oversimplifying and misreading me, so be it.

Me: John Nash was schizophrenic. Nijinsky was schizophrenic. The vicious serial killer who lived the county over was schizophrenic.

You: SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A DISEASE. ONE CANNOT WILL ONESELF OUT OF SCHIZOPHRENIA. SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT OCCURS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THEIR DISEASE. SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT BAD.

[Mr Sausage]

SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A DISEASE.

Unarguably true.

ONE CANNOT WILL ONESELF OUT OF SCHIZOPHRENIA.

Unarguably true.

SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT OCCURS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THEIR DISEASE.

That's basic law: a person shown to be suffering from mental insanity can be held to be not responsible for their actions.

SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT BAD.

Irrelevant one way or the other.

Also, this should be basic enough: stop confounding different mental afflictions.

[zedz]

My brain hurts.

Does that make me a bad person?

[Zot!]

The manifestation of clinical depression in Melancholia is not unrealistic and it's onset in the film is extremely obvious. You are welcome to interpret her as a unpleasant person as a result if you like, her sister often does. We don't see much of her in a healthy state, but we can imagine she is certainly a lot more pleasant to be around, as evidenced by the limo ride. Can we please end this now?

[knives]

My brain hurts.

Does that make me a bad person?

Coming from a family of depressives who act exactly like the Dunst character my brain hurts pretty bad myself. Why does every idiot with a keyboard want to kill the author in the dumbest of ways?

[Reliakor]

SCHIZOPHRENIA IS A DISEASE.

Unarguably true.

ONE CANNOT WILL ONESELF OUT OF SCHIZOPHRENIA.

Unarguably true.

SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT OCCURS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THEIR DISEASE.

That's basic law: a person shown to be suffering from mental insanity can be held to be not responsible for their actions.

SCHIZOPHRENIC PEOPLE ARE NOT BAD.

Irrelevant one way or the other.

Also, this should be basic enough: stop confounding different mental afflictions.

I confounded nothing. Indeed you are the person who began to compare depression to drunkenness (while driving to boot!). If you can't see how those mantras I posted have little relation to my points...

[mfunk9786]

Oy vey, how long do we have to wait for a ban and threadsplit this time?

[Gregory]

Reliakor, even if, for the sake of argument, the point is conceded that Justine acts like an "asshole," why is this kind of discussion in any way a useful way of approaching or discussing the film? David has already offered this criticism of your line of argument. If you want films about "admirable" people, role models or whatever, I think Von Trier's films are not likely to be fertile ground for you. Besides, I and others have argued that she ultimately does something admirable (though that's hardly the entire point here) in what are pretty much the most bleak and hopeless circumstances imaginable.

[Reliakor]

If you want films about "admirable" people, role models or whatever, I think Von Trier's films are not likely to be fertile ground for you. Besides, I and others have argued that she ultimately does something admirable (though that's hardly the entire point here) in what are pretty much the most bleak and hopeless circumstances imaginable.

I found Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves very fine and powerful films, so I don't have any animus against Von Trier or his particular concerns. I was only trying to explain why this film didn't work for me.

[Tom Hagen]

I don't have the time or patience to figure out what is going on with this thread, but I just wanted to chime in and say that this was an excellent film, and that it clarified my thinking -- good and bad -- about von Trier's prior work.

[Alan Smithee]

I don't have the time or patience to figure out what is going on with this thread, but I just wanted to chime in and say that this was an excellent film, and that it clarified my thinking -- good and bad -- about von Trier's prior work.

Agreed on the clarifying his previous work. Senses of cinema had a short piece on it and a little rundown of his female centric films that I think is worth quoting:

SpoilerShow

Lars von Trier has a bent for sacrificing his protagonists (mostly women), and for him, more is not less. In his Breaking the Waves (1996), the Christ-like Bess (Emily Watson) inaugurates the series of self-sacrifices: goodness is her sin, and it leads her to discard her life to prostitution rather than save the life of her husband, like Dancer in the Dark‘s (2000) Selm (Björk) who sacrifices herself for her son. The next stage would be Dogville (2003), whose Grace (Nicole Kidman) is in many respects their successor, offers herself up to an entire village, though by the story’s end she pulls herself together like some postmodern Cinderella to take revenge – with an automatic weapon – on the community that has taken her in and exploited her. Then comes Antichrist (2009), where the woman is no longer Christ-like, or indeed even good, but instead brings to life human nature’s most destructive tendencies, offering up her son for the sake of her own orgasms.
Now Mr von Trier has become such a gourmand of sacrifice that he can only be satisfied by the immolation of the entire world.

In this context I definitely wonder what's next. Let's face it, with his assertions that he's making a porno we're all pretty curious.

[knives]

Spoiler warning on the quote would be nice.

[Alan Smithee]

Sorry knives, thought most of those spoilers were like darth vader being someone who shall not be nameds father by now for most of our set. Fixed.

[knives]

I suppose it's what I get for putting off Dogville for so long.

[Volta]

I suppose it's what I get for putting off Dogville for so long.

I actually had Dogville spoiled for me relatively early on, so I know how much that sucks. It doesn't ruin so much, since it's always neat to see the character development in his films. That being said, it must be the most commonly spoiled arthouse film. All of von Trier's films get spoiled a lot, actually. I think that's why von Trier "spoiled" the end of Melancholia in the opening sequence....

[Yakushima]

I had same thoughts as Zot! while watching "Melancholia", there is a huge amount of similarity to the "Comet In Moominland"... Perhaps, it's been Von Trier's inspiration?
My reading of the film is

SpoilerShow

somewhat more straightforward, based on Von Trier's own words at the time of filming "Melancholia" that he's working on a science fiction project and also based on inconsistencies between first sequence (that many seem to take literally as a summation of what happened at the end) and what actually happens in the second act. As a "science fiction" the film allows for more than one fantastical element. I take as such perceived Justine's ability to see the future, making her Cassandra-like figure in the film . The film structure is strictly linear, the first sequence is actually her vision that motivates her bizarre behavior at her wedding and subsequent self-destruction. It incorporates the glimpses of actual future events, albeit distorted by her psyche, as well as manifestation of her frustration with her life (sleepwalking in wedding dress with seaweed-like things clinging to her legs). The observation of strange star early in the film confirms to her that the vision was of real future. In light of this knowledge she tries to play along for a time but soon falls apart. She comes to terms with all of it by the time the rest of the characters only start to grasp the situation. Through Justine Trier speaks of his own view of humanity and place of life in the universe, he believes his prophesy will never be heard. He is Justine.

[Gregory]

Interesting reading, and maybe that's indeed what Von Trier intended. I still feel like I don't quite get him on the whole, having loved this one after having misgivings about more or less everything else I'd seen of his (Element of Crime, Breaking the Waves, Kingdom 1, and Dancer, though I like the latter in some ways). I need to see more and reassess.
Back to your reading, I'd personally find it much harder to relate to the film if Justine is to be seen as a clairvoyant. She isn't a Cassandra in the sense of someone with a mission to try and warn others of an impending disaster, though in a case like this there'd be little point to that. I took her statement to Claire, "I see things," in a more general personal way, expressing a philosophical inclination, rather than foretelling any events.

[Yakushima]

Gregory, thank you for your comment!

SpoilerShow

I agree that Justine is not acting like Cassandra in the time sequence shown in the film. This interpretation did not occur to me until after the viewing. The strongest clue was in the dialog with her sister about uniqueness of life in the universe, where Justine stressed several times with absolute certainty her "knowledge" of the subject. Also, in the beginning Claire warned her "not to do what she always does", and she did not seem to refer to embarrassing behavior Justine had displayed already. Von Trier paints as ambiguous picture as possible, of course, I just thought my interpretation ties up all loose ends nicely:) In addition, it gives better justification to Justine's behavior, which helped me to relate to her character, otherwise too annoying.
If you accept my theory, Von Triers own self-destructive behavior at Cannes makes much more sense, mirroring the film events.

[dad1153]

National Society of Film Critics names "Melancholia" best picture of the yeat; Kirsten Dunst gets best actress nod. Maybe (just maybe) this will give Academy voters enough cover to at leat nominate "Melancholia" and Dunst for some Oscar love.

[puxzkkx]

I surprised myself by really, really liking this. I usually loathe von Trier but I didn't really "feel" him here - at no point while watching could I picture him masturbating and cackling to himself in the editing suite - which is good. It is true that the story is built on the most blatant of thematic premises and the symbols are hamfisted, but I think here they are earnest enough to achieve a sort of purity. And even if the metaphors themselves are obvious (Melancholia = melancholia?!?! omg!) I think there is a real grace to the wedding sequences which lay depression bare in their depiction of Justine's destruction of her friends, self and private world before the physical world itself is destroyed. Of course the acting is the treat here and probably the key to making this work for me - Kirsten Dunst's portrayal of depression is so rigorous that one is able to ignore some of the risible dialogue she has to recite, and she manages to avoid abetting von Trier's misogyny by quite clearly making this role a personal one for herself. Gainsbourg's rawness in the second half, while less 'deep', is equally present and vivid. It's a great double act.

So, typically awful dialogue, a messy structure but (apart from the prologue, which I didn't like at all) surprisingly toned-down when it comes to pomp compared to LVT's past efforts, and quite affecting.

[dustybooks]

Saw this last night at last and loved it, though I've never been in a theater with such an unappreciative audience -- talking, laughing, snorting, and rooting through tin cans (!?) all the way through it. The usher at the theater is a patron at the library where I work and this morning she's already come in and basically yelled at me for enjoying the movie! Didn't lessen my experience though, and the two people I was with were impressed with it as well.

I don't have any real insights to add to what everyone else has said, but a probably silly question: did anyone else

SpoilerShow

think of The Birds at the finale, when Claire and Justine clasp hands and we then move to a shot of Justine gently smiling? I immediately thought of Tippi Hedren and Jessica Tandy in the similarly chilling last scene of the Hitchcock film... but I tend to read Hitchcock into things where he doesn't belong.

While I'm at it, the one scene I was unsure how to read was that in which Justine says she knows "things," such as the number of beans in the jar at the reception. That seemed slightly off to me, but I wondered if I was just missing a detail someplace. Did she glean the information somewhere or was the movie actually suggesting she "just knew" the count??

Overall, what an astonishingly vivid and moving portrait of depression from Dunst here. Can't believe she wasn't recognized by the Academy.